This is the class blog for Eng 1102 at GA Tech called "Fiction, Human Rights, and Social Responsibility." The purpose of this blog is to extend our discussion beyond the classroom and to become aware of human rights issues that exist in the world today and how technology has played a role in either solving or aggravating them. Blogs will be a paragraph long (250 words) and students will contribute once every three weeks according to class number. Entries must be posted by Friday midnight.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Credibility of UN Findings on the Fukushima Community after 2011 Reactor Meltdown

Of all the nations in eastern Asia, I think it would be
fairly safe to say that Japan is the most modernized and westernized. However,
no matter how technologically advanced the nation is or how much the neon signs
and buildings in Tokyo glow, there is little to be done to best Mother Nature
when she throws an earthquake and a tsunami at you. (I will say that it is
quite the testament to the advancement of that country though that they were
able to bounce back from a triple disaster: earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear
reactor meltdown, and not devolve into utter chaos). Two years after that March
2011 devastation, a UN scientific report being compiled on the effects of
radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power plant has come under criticism from human
rights groups.

The UN
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) presented
findings that an "increased incidence of radiation-related health
effects" should not be expected around Fukushima, or in layman's terms,
the radiation levels are not out of the norm enough to be detrimental to the
population. UN special rapporteur (different from just a reporter; rapporteurs
are appointed by the UN and report on proceedings of an issue) on the right to
health Anand Grover, however, claims that the data in the report is insufficient
to state that there will be no bad health effects. Grover made his own findings
"from a human rights perspective" when he flew to Japan in November
2012.

Mari
Inoue of the Human Rights Now organization says that the committee needs to
take into account and further study workers exposed to radiation along with
involving the communities in future response and action.

So the
issues that remain and seem to be recurring themes in this class are
determining who can be considered an authority on a topic,who or what work is
credible, and how should information be disseminated. I have trouble agreeing
with Grover because although he does have public interests in mind, after doing
a little research on him, I found that he specialized in HIV research, so
nuclear science is somewhat out of his realm whereas UNSCEAR is composed of 27
nations, meaning at least 27 different scientists whose educations and/or
careers have focused on nuclear energy. If it were not a scientific committee
working on this, if it were instead just a government committee, I would be
concerned with some kind of underlying political agenda running its course in
the committee's findings because usually there typically is one. However, I
like to believe that the scientific community, not just in the US but the
global scientific community, is not one that likes to be involved with government
or politics unless it involves passing laws for improving the environment or to
get research/project funding. Thus, I wouldn't imagine that this committee
would be willing to risk the safety of the communities around Fukushima.
Furthermore, UN special reporters are only allowed to investigate within a
country if that country's government allows it, so for Japan to let Grover in
means that they more than likely have the public's interests at heart as well.

I do think that involving the communities
around the plant is key in determining how to proceed with future actions from
the UN and the Japanese government. When you can get first-hand, unfiltered
accounts, it is typically best to use it. Also, Grover isn't unfounded in taking
extra precautions. I'm not really questioning the merits of any of the figures
in this article, but it does bring to mind the problem of who to consider an
authority on certain issues. Just because you are named an expert or assigned
to a specific position, does that make you qualified to be a proliferator of
news and decisions about it, especially if it involves a group of people? We
somewhat saw that with Adam Johnson and The Orphan Master's Son and how critics
questioned how he could have the "audacity" or "authority"
to write from the point of view of a group of people he isn't associated with. With
Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi stated in interviews that her book is not a
biography, but of course most parts were based on true events, which raises another
question of what and how much to take in as truth when information/media is
dispensed.